Season’s Greasings, One and All.
As we look forward to our holiday tradition of decorating the tree while listening to the Three Tenors struggle with English, it’s hard not to remember 2005 as the year we witnessed the most destructive forces in nature wreak devastation upon property and life, leaving untold despair and ruin in their wake. But such is the reality of living with small children.
Life at the Layne household is a lot like life on The Itchy and Scratchy Show. The fighting briefly ceases each morning as Amanda leaves for Kindergarten, then resumes in full force and pitch when she climbs off of the bus at 11:30. Thank God for school. Karen and Mark shudder at the prospect of each approaching weekend.
In August, for the first time since Ally was born, Karen and Mark took a short trip alone to San Antonio. To keep Mom and Dad from feeling homesick, Amanda phoned in a daily fighting report. Though no knockouts were recorded, Amanda was declared the winner with seven kicks, five punches, and one pinch, to Ally’s four scratches, three bites, and one hair pull. (The girls will no doubt enjoy the “OK Corral Home Dueling Kit” they’re getting for Christmas.) In an effort to prolong their time away, K & M rented a car and drove home – by way of Alaska.
Whoever dubbed them the “terrible twos” never met Allyson Rose Layne. Ally has added a whole new dimension to the ignominious essence of this infamous age. Not unlike an iceberg, sea anemone, or Madonna, the sparkling blue eyes, angelic face, and pixie-cut blond hair are mere camouflage – a smoke screen provided by nature to conceal the pure malevolence lurking beneath.
Ally absolutely adores Amanda – much in the way mountain lions adore sheep. K&M first caught wind of Ally’s true nature when, at the age of one-and-three-fifths, they discovered her dropping miniature Disney Princess figurines into the mouth of her Little Tykes volcano. Now it seems her love of human sacrifice is exceeded only by her taste for human flesh. Mark still has a scar from the day he turned around to find Ally clamped to his backside like a cartoon canine. K&M believe the reason Amanda is doing so well in school and wishes she could stay all day (and night), is because nobody there bites her.
Ironically, Amanda and Ally have a rather symbiotic relationship in this regard. Whereas Ally was obviously a New Guinean head hunter in a previous life – pre-programmed to stalk and eat her prey – Amanda was no doubt a fugitive. Not happy unless she’s being chased, Amanda occupies her free time running away and hiding from the small, fanged person that is her sister. (Note to Ally: follow the trail of crumbs.) The rest of her day is devoted to finding taller, more dangerous things to jump off of, adding to her stuffed animal collection (K & M recently sold their refrigerator to make room for more), or playing Quidditch with her friend Emily. Amanda hasn’t stopped moving since conception, and nighttime is no exception. Karen and Mark routinely find her wandering the house during the wee hours, talking in her sleep, and making potty in unusual places. They assume her restlessness stems from her belief that, as soon as she goes to sleep, all her friends come over with party hats, streamers, a clown, and a monkey.
When Ally isn’t busy feeding virgins to Krakatoa or taking a chunk out of someone’s behind, she’s engaging in her second favorite pastime – lunch. K & M have erected a shrine to whoever invented Spaghetti-O’s with Meatballs (slogan: “The neat-round-spaghetti-impregnated-with-pellets-of-meat-flavored-polyvinylchloride-you-can-eat-with-a-spoon.”) Both girls continue to grow despite that very little of what they eat actually makes it into their mouths. K & M are considering installing a grate under the kitchen table which would allow the several tons of food that falls there each day to be sluiced away to some third world country (i.e. Arkansas).
On a sad note, Barney the Dinosaur died earlier this year – another victim of global deforestation. Unfortunately, the Wiggles met a similar fate when their plane went down over the Pacific. K & M haven’t yet decided what tragedy awaits Thomas the Tank Engine, but it is sure to be horrible.
Karen continues to dream of putting an addition on the house, not only because she’s running out of horizontal surfaces to put stuff on, but in the hopes of creating a new hidden room where the kids can’t find her. Mark plods onward, adding to his blog when time permits (http://markjlaynesramblings.blogspot.com), while yet pursuing his lifelong dream of photosynthesis.
In keeping with the spirit of the season (and the flavor of this installation), Charles Dickens perhaps best summed up this year when he wrote, “In the little world in which children have their existence, whosoever brings them up, there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt, as injustice.”
Merry Christmas to all, and to all good grief.
Karen, Mark, Amanda, & Ally
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Friday, September 02, 2005
The Lonliest Nation on Earth
It has become painfully obvious that the United States is, without question, the loneliest nation on earth.
Stop to consider that the rest of the world despises us and wishes we would pack up and move to another planet in some other galaxy. Radical religious groups have vowed to snuff us out. Historians are comparing us to the Roman Empire prior to its demise.
So, why all the hatred? Sure we’ve been exporting a boatload of misguided foreign policy of late, our legal system has become something of a joke, and yes, we are responsible for reality TV, but are we truly that bad?
The answer is an unequivocal “yes.” I mean, you don’t earn a nickname like “The Great Satan” without trying. The bigger question, however, is what do we plan to do about it?
Sure, we could elect leaders with IQ’s higher than turnips who practice socially responsible politics. And yes, we could be more generous with our unprecedented national wealth in terms of combating worldwide hunger and poverty. Such a course of action, however, would require time, effort, and grass roots support of the voting public, which our current national attention deficit disorder and preoccupation with real estate speculation and advancements in SUV technology, make unlikely. As such, better to follow the tried-and-true path of focusing our collective attention on treating the symptoms rather than curing the illness.
The truth is, as the United States’ isolation from the rest of the world worsens, we will be facing an epidemic of loneliness (to go along with our present epidemics of depression, impotence, infertility, obesity, hair loss, high cholesterol, stained teeth, and penile insufficiency).
The warning signs are all around us. For example, Americans, as a people, are already so starved for contact with other human beings we cannot be out of touch with each other long enough to go the bathroom.
This became glaringly apparent to me the other day when I received an important call from a friend who had urgent news about the lint screen in his clothes dryer. As we were talking, I heard a loud splashing sound in the background.
“What are you doing,” I asked. My answer came with the rush and gurgle of a flushing toilet. At that moment, I realized I had just participated in something every man dreads – bathroom conversation with another male.
It’s an evolutionary fact that men do not like to be present when another male is eliminating. Unlike women who tend to “potty” in groups of no less than three (one to hold the toilet paper, one to lift the seat, one to guard the door, etc.), men historically eschew the company of other males during such times, routinely going to great lengths to avoid each other.
This predilection is nothing new. During prehistoric times, the single greatest contributing factor to the high mortality rate among early male hominids was the desire to get as far away from fellow cave dwellers as possible during times of intestinal urgency.
As a result, cavemen would routinely stray into a remote portion of the jungle with the latest edition of the Daily Grunt, never to be heard from again. Back at the cave, the cavewomen would be squatting together in a circle, prattling on about the pterodactyl they were planning to roast that evening or whose husband has the biggest club, while saber tooth tigers were devouring their mates.
Even today, most men find the privacy factor in public restrooms sorely lacking. Ask a man, and he will tell you that a sound-proofed cubicle with, floor-to-ceiling lead-lined walls and a bank vault door may still not be enough to ease his anxiety over toilet-time intrusions. In fact, I have a male friend who works in a brand new office building featuring “modern,” restrooms with no separation between stalls whatsoever. He tells me he often holds it until his ride home at night, at which point he stops at a gas station to “take care of business the way God intended.”
But I digress… The point is, although surrounded by over six billion people, we are a nation desperate for social interaction, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by the wireless telephone industry.
Witness the proliferation of cellular telephones at every level of society. Thanks to the wireless industry, none of us needs ever be out of contact with friends, loved ones, or bookies again, even if those persons are standing right next to us.
Consider our heroes in Hollywood. While channel surfing the other night, I happened upon one of those ubiquitous awards ceremonies – a rare occasion when actors, musicians, agents, publicists, and caterers congregate to celebrate their collective genius, exchange recipes, and prove that they can still look smashing even when weighed down by two-hundred-fifty thousand dollars worth of borrowed jewelry and designer fashions.
Every celebrity worth his or her weight in gold was talking on a cell phone – one no doubt equipped with the essential camera feature – throughout the entire broadcast. I assumed, as most viewers probably did, that they were perhaps conversing with family members, pet sitters, or parole officers watching at home on TV. But then you would see a particular celebrity waving across the room to his counterpart who also had a phone plastered to the side of his or her head. One can only imagine the conversations.
“How does my new phone look while I’m talking on it?”
“Here, let me send you a picture so you can see for yourself.”
Given the current pace, in ten years it is likely that direct human conversation will go the way of dinosaurs as people become more and more embarrassed to relate to each other in the stodgy, old fashioned, mano-a-mano way.
Fast-forward to the 2015 “Aren’t I Fantastic Awards” and two Hollywood starlets seated across from each other in the back of the same limo, conversing by wireless phone:
“Like, can you believe Pomegranate Paltrow talking to Terlingua Travolta face-to-face?”
“Do you think she knew how stupid she looked not using her cell phone?”
“And all those germs!”
“What about Evian Eastwood? His phone is so last week!”
“I know! It doesn’t even have a built-in MP3 player, electronic organizer, satellite television, or microwave oven!”
“Not to mention this handy taser feature.”
“Ahhh! Ahhhhhhh!”
Yes, times have changed. In today’s hands-free world, walking down a public sidewalk having an animated conversation with oneself – while annoying and ostentatious – is now relatively commonplace. Fifty years ago, however, such behavior would have rated a one way ticket to a mental hospital. The doctors of the time, upon discovering a wire leading from a patient’s ear to a small device clipped to his belt, would have no doubt concluded it to be some sort of battery pack supplying power to the brain, and immediately begun an alien autopsy.
Nevertheless, like Amazonian termites constructing a giant pillar of mud, the fearless employees of the wireless industry are literally tripping over each other (and in some cases themselves) in an effort to strap antennas to every stationary, immovable, and/or inanimate object on the face of the earth including Mount Rushmore, Donald Trump’s hair, and the US Supreme Court.
In fact, if the wireless companies have their way, our planet will soon be so bristling with antennae that when viewed from space, the Earth will look like a giant koosh ball. Of course, the benefit of being able to order a pizza from heretofore unheard of locations like parking garages, coal mines, and Iowa will no doubt far outweigh the negatives in terms of global ecology, aesthetics, and increased male pattern baldness.
But is this what we truly want… to be so connected to each other that we can be contacted anywhere, anytime including during moments of intimacy, on adventure vacations in the Antartic, or while watching Survivor Detroit?
I for one find this trend deeply troubling, emblematic of the degradation of the very fabric of society. I long for simpler times… those bygone days when you could drive up to your favorite fast food restaurant, order a high cholesterol lunch face-to-face from a smiling fiberglass clown, and drive away with the wrong food without the use of any modern technology whatsoever.
I guess times have changed, and social convention as well.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to phone my wife up in the kitchen and ask her bring the newspaper downstairs. Nature calls.
© 2005 Mark J. Layne/Layne-Duck Productions, Ltd.
Stop to consider that the rest of the world despises us and wishes we would pack up and move to another planet in some other galaxy. Radical religious groups have vowed to snuff us out. Historians are comparing us to the Roman Empire prior to its demise.
So, why all the hatred? Sure we’ve been exporting a boatload of misguided foreign policy of late, our legal system has become something of a joke, and yes, we are responsible for reality TV, but are we truly that bad?
The answer is an unequivocal “yes.” I mean, you don’t earn a nickname like “The Great Satan” without trying. The bigger question, however, is what do we plan to do about it?
Sure, we could elect leaders with IQ’s higher than turnips who practice socially responsible politics. And yes, we could be more generous with our unprecedented national wealth in terms of combating worldwide hunger and poverty. Such a course of action, however, would require time, effort, and grass roots support of the voting public, which our current national attention deficit disorder and preoccupation with real estate speculation and advancements in SUV technology, make unlikely. As such, better to follow the tried-and-true path of focusing our collective attention on treating the symptoms rather than curing the illness.
The truth is, as the United States’ isolation from the rest of the world worsens, we will be facing an epidemic of loneliness (to go along with our present epidemics of depression, impotence, infertility, obesity, hair loss, high cholesterol, stained teeth, and penile insufficiency).
The warning signs are all around us. For example, Americans, as a people, are already so starved for contact with other human beings we cannot be out of touch with each other long enough to go the bathroom.
This became glaringly apparent to me the other day when I received an important call from a friend who had urgent news about the lint screen in his clothes dryer. As we were talking, I heard a loud splashing sound in the background.
“What are you doing,” I asked. My answer came with the rush and gurgle of a flushing toilet. At that moment, I realized I had just participated in something every man dreads – bathroom conversation with another male.
It’s an evolutionary fact that men do not like to be present when another male is eliminating. Unlike women who tend to “potty” in groups of no less than three (one to hold the toilet paper, one to lift the seat, one to guard the door, etc.), men historically eschew the company of other males during such times, routinely going to great lengths to avoid each other.
This predilection is nothing new. During prehistoric times, the single greatest contributing factor to the high mortality rate among early male hominids was the desire to get as far away from fellow cave dwellers as possible during times of intestinal urgency.
As a result, cavemen would routinely stray into a remote portion of the jungle with the latest edition of the Daily Grunt, never to be heard from again. Back at the cave, the cavewomen would be squatting together in a circle, prattling on about the pterodactyl they were planning to roast that evening or whose husband has the biggest club, while saber tooth tigers were devouring their mates.
Even today, most men find the privacy factor in public restrooms sorely lacking. Ask a man, and he will tell you that a sound-proofed cubicle with, floor-to-ceiling lead-lined walls and a bank vault door may still not be enough to ease his anxiety over toilet-time intrusions. In fact, I have a male friend who works in a brand new office building featuring “modern,” restrooms with no separation between stalls whatsoever. He tells me he often holds it until his ride home at night, at which point he stops at a gas station to “take care of business the way God intended.”
But I digress… The point is, although surrounded by over six billion people, we are a nation desperate for social interaction, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by the wireless telephone industry.
Witness the proliferation of cellular telephones at every level of society. Thanks to the wireless industry, none of us needs ever be out of contact with friends, loved ones, or bookies again, even if those persons are standing right next to us.
Consider our heroes in Hollywood. While channel surfing the other night, I happened upon one of those ubiquitous awards ceremonies – a rare occasion when actors, musicians, agents, publicists, and caterers congregate to celebrate their collective genius, exchange recipes, and prove that they can still look smashing even when weighed down by two-hundred-fifty thousand dollars worth of borrowed jewelry and designer fashions.
Every celebrity worth his or her weight in gold was talking on a cell phone – one no doubt equipped with the essential camera feature – throughout the entire broadcast. I assumed, as most viewers probably did, that they were perhaps conversing with family members, pet sitters, or parole officers watching at home on TV. But then you would see a particular celebrity waving across the room to his counterpart who also had a phone plastered to the side of his or her head. One can only imagine the conversations.
“How does my new phone look while I’m talking on it?”
“Here, let me send you a picture so you can see for yourself.”
Given the current pace, in ten years it is likely that direct human conversation will go the way of dinosaurs as people become more and more embarrassed to relate to each other in the stodgy, old fashioned, mano-a-mano way.
Fast-forward to the 2015 “Aren’t I Fantastic Awards” and two Hollywood starlets seated across from each other in the back of the same limo, conversing by wireless phone:
“Like, can you believe Pomegranate Paltrow talking to Terlingua Travolta face-to-face?”
“Do you think she knew how stupid she looked not using her cell phone?”
“And all those germs!”
“What about Evian Eastwood? His phone is so last week!”
“I know! It doesn’t even have a built-in MP3 player, electronic organizer, satellite television, or microwave oven!”
“Not to mention this handy taser feature.”
“Ahhh! Ahhhhhhh!”
Yes, times have changed. In today’s hands-free world, walking down a public sidewalk having an animated conversation with oneself – while annoying and ostentatious – is now relatively commonplace. Fifty years ago, however, such behavior would have rated a one way ticket to a mental hospital. The doctors of the time, upon discovering a wire leading from a patient’s ear to a small device clipped to his belt, would have no doubt concluded it to be some sort of battery pack supplying power to the brain, and immediately begun an alien autopsy.
Nevertheless, like Amazonian termites constructing a giant pillar of mud, the fearless employees of the wireless industry are literally tripping over each other (and in some cases themselves) in an effort to strap antennas to every stationary, immovable, and/or inanimate object on the face of the earth including Mount Rushmore, Donald Trump’s hair, and the US Supreme Court.
In fact, if the wireless companies have their way, our planet will soon be so bristling with antennae that when viewed from space, the Earth will look like a giant koosh ball. Of course, the benefit of being able to order a pizza from heretofore unheard of locations like parking garages, coal mines, and Iowa will no doubt far outweigh the negatives in terms of global ecology, aesthetics, and increased male pattern baldness.
But is this what we truly want… to be so connected to each other that we can be contacted anywhere, anytime including during moments of intimacy, on adventure vacations in the Antartic, or while watching Survivor Detroit?
I for one find this trend deeply troubling, emblematic of the degradation of the very fabric of society. I long for simpler times… those bygone days when you could drive up to your favorite fast food restaurant, order a high cholesterol lunch face-to-face from a smiling fiberglass clown, and drive away with the wrong food without the use of any modern technology whatsoever.
I guess times have changed, and social convention as well.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to phone my wife up in the kitchen and ask her bring the newspaper downstairs. Nature calls.
© 2005 Mark J. Layne/Layne-Duck Productions, Ltd.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Vatican Expresses Relief at Pope's Passing
VATICAN CITY – As the dust settles from the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the 264th successor to St. Peter, sources inside the Vatican expressed relief today over former Pope John Paul II’s passing.
A high ranking cardinal who wished to remain anonymous stated that Pope John Paul’s final years were in reality much different than the carefully managed public perception proffered by the Vatican.
“He was barely coherent,” the source claimed. “He would most of the time just sit in his rocking chair, drooling, looking for the television remote. I would ask him, ‘Hey. What’s a matta you? He would smile, babble a word or two about Madonna, hum a few bars of ‘Material Girl,’ then go back to staring.”
Certain high ranking members of the Catholic Church in the US concur that John Paul had outlived his usefulness.
“He was in his position much too long,” claimed Bishop Edmund Ford of the Auburn Hills Diocese in Michigan. “Rumor has it the last seven to ten years of his papacy, all he wanted to do was wander St. Peter’s Square and ogle attractive women.”
Although the Vatican won’t confirm or deny such rumors, experts in Rome believe the Roman Catholic College of Cardinals selection of 78 year old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was indeed motivated by his age and the limited potential longevity of his office.
“It’s forced obsolescence,” said Heinrich Wienerplatz, chancellor of the Office of German-American Relations in New York. “It’s their way of ensuring turnover at the position, something we Germans will not stand for.”
Others claim the Vatican’s motivation wasn’t so much to make the papacy a revolving door, but to open more avenues of opportunity for dozens of cardinals who have devoted their lives to serving the Church.
“It’s payback,” said Luigi don Giovese of the Palermo Italy based Mutual Association of Families for Italian Ascendancy. “Most of these guys have given up everything to serve God. They just want a little somethin’ – you know – for the effort.”
Father Cody Wilson of the Surf’s Up Ministry in Hermosa Beach, CA, agrees.
“It’s a chance for these dudes to live in a really bitchin’ house and have people wait on them hand and foot. After a lifetime of celibacy and being forced to wear those funny hats, it’s the least they deserve.”
Though some expect Ratzinger to carry on the reforms begun by his close friend and predecessor, Pope John Paul II, others aren’t quite as confident. According to Randall Johnson, associate professor of theology at Criminy University of Religious Studies in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, Ratzinger is regarded by most theologians as a strict guardian of Roman Catholic tradition, and may well resurrect many of the church’s archaic practices.
“Ya, hey. Before year’s end, we fully expect to see more than a few heretics burned at the stake,” said Johnson.
Renaldo Manzanilla of the American Dominican University in Prague disagrees, doubting Ratzinger will re-visit such extreme measures.
“Seizure of property, public scourging, imprisonment – that’s one thing,” said Manzanilla. “Execution is something altogether different.”
Regardless, Ratzinger’s reputation as a hard line adherent to Catholic doctrine and social conservatism is a definite blow to those groups hoping for religious reform. Jonathan Holmes, spokesperson for Vatican watchdog group, Catholics for Sex, believes Ratzinger’s appointment sets his movement back fifteen years.
“It’s a shame,” Holmes said. “Toward the end, I believe John Paul was coming around to our way of thinking. I even heard they found a Penthouse magazine under his mattress.”
Though the Vatican disputes the former pontiff had any intention of easing the century-old restrictions on “recreational” sex among married Catholics, Holmes believes differently.
“Had he hung around a few more years, who knows? Catholics could have been having unprotected, non-reproductive sex in every conceivable position, with no fear of eternal damnation whatsoever.”
Holmes and many of his flock are now debating whether to renounce their Christian faith, and turn to a more open ideology.
“The Vatican’s decision leaves us very little choice,” Holmes stated, adding, “We’re not crazy about what they eat, but Hindus for example sure have a lot more fun in the sack.”
Other reform groups are relieved at the selection of a near octogenarian to head the church.
“If it had to be a hard-liner, at least he’s old,” commented Chianti Martini, religion reporter for the popular Italian underground paper, Daily Scungili. “It gives the more liberal Catholic sects some hope that, within their lifetimes, a younger voice might appear to ease the Church into the 17th Century.” Martini also claimed, later in the same article, that Pope John Paul II was likely an extraterrestrial.
Ratzinger’s election also opens the door for a new round of turf wars between Christian denominations in the US. Presbyterian minister Donald Drysdale is quick to point out that The Catholic Church isn’t exactly known for its progressive thinking.
“Let’s be honest. It only took them, what – three centuries to pardon Galileo?” Drysdale is of course referring to Galileo’s conviction for heresy in 1633 at the hand of Pope Gregory XIII – a crime for which the Vatican Council forgave Galileo in 1992, nine years after Pope John Paul II initiated an investigation into his condemnation, and 359 years after his wrongful imprisonment and subsequent death in prison.
Reaction in the Jewish community over Ratzinger’s appointment is understandably mixed, especially given Ratzinger’s former ties to Nazi Germany. Elohim Plotnik, director of the L’chiam Latke Center for Hebrew Reflection and Nosh in Chicago’s suburban Highland Park, believes that for the most part, Jews have left their dislike of Germans in the past.
“Not all Germans are genocidal fascists,” said Plotnik, “just like not all Jews have big noses.” Plotnik went on to add, “That being said, I must imagine Hitler is smiling.”
Whether viewed as a positive or negative, Pope John Paul II’s death was certainly a polarizing event worldwide.
Andy Miller of Chicago is just glad it’s over. “At least it means an end to all those friggin’ red and white flags,” said Miller, referring to the proliferation of Polish national flags that occurred throughout the Chicago area following John Paul’s death.
“With the largest Polish population outside Warsaw, it is only fitting people here would want to show respect for their countryman and spiritual leader by hanging the flag of our homeland out their car window, or making it into a babushka they could wear on their heads,” said Andrzej Budinski, owner of a butcher shop in Chicago’s Portage Park neighborhood.
Will the last person to leave Poland please turn out the lights.
© 2005 Mark J. Layne/Layne-Duck Productions, Ltd.
A high ranking cardinal who wished to remain anonymous stated that Pope John Paul’s final years were in reality much different than the carefully managed public perception proffered by the Vatican.
“He was barely coherent,” the source claimed. “He would most of the time just sit in his rocking chair, drooling, looking for the television remote. I would ask him, ‘Hey. What’s a matta you? He would smile, babble a word or two about Madonna, hum a few bars of ‘Material Girl,’ then go back to staring.”
Certain high ranking members of the Catholic Church in the US concur that John Paul had outlived his usefulness.
“He was in his position much too long,” claimed Bishop Edmund Ford of the Auburn Hills Diocese in Michigan. “Rumor has it the last seven to ten years of his papacy, all he wanted to do was wander St. Peter’s Square and ogle attractive women.”
Although the Vatican won’t confirm or deny such rumors, experts in Rome believe the Roman Catholic College of Cardinals selection of 78 year old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was indeed motivated by his age and the limited potential longevity of his office.
“It’s forced obsolescence,” said Heinrich Wienerplatz, chancellor of the Office of German-American Relations in New York. “It’s their way of ensuring turnover at the position, something we Germans will not stand for.”
Others claim the Vatican’s motivation wasn’t so much to make the papacy a revolving door, but to open more avenues of opportunity for dozens of cardinals who have devoted their lives to serving the Church.
“It’s payback,” said Luigi don Giovese of the Palermo Italy based Mutual Association of Families for Italian Ascendancy. “Most of these guys have given up everything to serve God. They just want a little somethin’ – you know – for the effort.”
Father Cody Wilson of the Surf’s Up Ministry in Hermosa Beach, CA, agrees.
“It’s a chance for these dudes to live in a really bitchin’ house and have people wait on them hand and foot. After a lifetime of celibacy and being forced to wear those funny hats, it’s the least they deserve.”
Though some expect Ratzinger to carry on the reforms begun by his close friend and predecessor, Pope John Paul II, others aren’t quite as confident. According to Randall Johnson, associate professor of theology at Criminy University of Religious Studies in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, Ratzinger is regarded by most theologians as a strict guardian of Roman Catholic tradition, and may well resurrect many of the church’s archaic practices.
“Ya, hey. Before year’s end, we fully expect to see more than a few heretics burned at the stake,” said Johnson.
Renaldo Manzanilla of the American Dominican University in Prague disagrees, doubting Ratzinger will re-visit such extreme measures.
“Seizure of property, public scourging, imprisonment – that’s one thing,” said Manzanilla. “Execution is something altogether different.”
Regardless, Ratzinger’s reputation as a hard line adherent to Catholic doctrine and social conservatism is a definite blow to those groups hoping for religious reform. Jonathan Holmes, spokesperson for Vatican watchdog group, Catholics for Sex, believes Ratzinger’s appointment sets his movement back fifteen years.
“It’s a shame,” Holmes said. “Toward the end, I believe John Paul was coming around to our way of thinking. I even heard they found a Penthouse magazine under his mattress.”
Though the Vatican disputes the former pontiff had any intention of easing the century-old restrictions on “recreational” sex among married Catholics, Holmes believes differently.
“Had he hung around a few more years, who knows? Catholics could have been having unprotected, non-reproductive sex in every conceivable position, with no fear of eternal damnation whatsoever.”
Holmes and many of his flock are now debating whether to renounce their Christian faith, and turn to a more open ideology.
“The Vatican’s decision leaves us very little choice,” Holmes stated, adding, “We’re not crazy about what they eat, but Hindus for example sure have a lot more fun in the sack.”
Other reform groups are relieved at the selection of a near octogenarian to head the church.
“If it had to be a hard-liner, at least he’s old,” commented Chianti Martini, religion reporter for the popular Italian underground paper, Daily Scungili. “It gives the more liberal Catholic sects some hope that, within their lifetimes, a younger voice might appear to ease the Church into the 17th Century.” Martini also claimed, later in the same article, that Pope John Paul II was likely an extraterrestrial.
Ratzinger’s election also opens the door for a new round of turf wars between Christian denominations in the US. Presbyterian minister Donald Drysdale is quick to point out that The Catholic Church isn’t exactly known for its progressive thinking.
“Let’s be honest. It only took them, what – three centuries to pardon Galileo?” Drysdale is of course referring to Galileo’s conviction for heresy in 1633 at the hand of Pope Gregory XIII – a crime for which the Vatican Council forgave Galileo in 1992, nine years after Pope John Paul II initiated an investigation into his condemnation, and 359 years after his wrongful imprisonment and subsequent death in prison.
Reaction in the Jewish community over Ratzinger’s appointment is understandably mixed, especially given Ratzinger’s former ties to Nazi Germany. Elohim Plotnik, director of the L’chiam Latke Center for Hebrew Reflection and Nosh in Chicago’s suburban Highland Park, believes that for the most part, Jews have left their dislike of Germans in the past.
“Not all Germans are genocidal fascists,” said Plotnik, “just like not all Jews have big noses.” Plotnik went on to add, “That being said, I must imagine Hitler is smiling.”
Whether viewed as a positive or negative, Pope John Paul II’s death was certainly a polarizing event worldwide.
Andy Miller of Chicago is just glad it’s over. “At least it means an end to all those friggin’ red and white flags,” said Miller, referring to the proliferation of Polish national flags that occurred throughout the Chicago area following John Paul’s death.
“With the largest Polish population outside Warsaw, it is only fitting people here would want to show respect for their countryman and spiritual leader by hanging the flag of our homeland out their car window, or making it into a babushka they could wear on their heads,” said Andrzej Budinski, owner of a butcher shop in Chicago’s Portage Park neighborhood.
Will the last person to leave Poland please turn out the lights.
© 2005 Mark J. Layne/Layne-Duck Productions, Ltd.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
California to Legalize Murder
LOS ANGELES – In a landmark initiative, the California State Legislature unanimously declared that murder is now legal in California, as long as it is committed within the sanctity of the “immediate family” and by a “well-known celebrity.”
“This is a terrific example of our justice system at work,” commented public defender Robbie “Whipsaw” Cochran, outspoken cousin of O.J. Simpson’s defense counsel. “What the state is saying is what we’ve been saying all along: just because the police find a knife covered in a victim’s blood with a dude’s finger prints on the weapon and a video tape of that same dude stabbing the victim left next to his signed confession, it doesn’t necessarily mean the dude’s guilty.”
According to sources in state government, recent decisions in the lower courts prompted Tuesday’s controversial action. Douglas Shriver, spokesperson for the California Supreme Court, was relieved. “We are now able to eliminate dozens of “frivolous” celebrity murder trials from our already overburdened court system. The legislature must have finally realized there was no sense perpetuating the charade that celebrities are subject to same laws as the rest of the population, especially when there are so many more serious issues currently before the court such as gay marriage.”
A source inside the Governor’s office who wished to remain anonymous claimed, however, that the decision was based more on economic considerations owing to the state’s recent financial crisis. “This is California. Our entire economy is linked to the entertainment industry. Speaking from an economic standpoint, if our primary export product is entertainment, and celebrities are the raw material from which that product is forged, then, in spite of what reprehensible citizens they may be, locking them all up would be not only foolish, but economically disastrous given the state’s current budget situation.”
Assistant Lieutenant Governor, Günter Schwarzenegger, denied this legislation had anything to do Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s former ties to Hollywood. “That’s nonsense,” he claimed. “Arnold was never a very good actor anyway.”
Religious groups are understandably outraged. “This is a travesty,” complained Rev. Calvin Glover of the San Dimas Church of Future Day Martyrs. An advocate for the prevention of domestic violence, Reverend Glover has devoted his ministry to the prevention of such crimes subsequent to his 1991 conviction for spousal abuse. “This ruling will only serve to place innocent lives in jeopardy, including my own wife’s.”
I understand his concerns,” stated Esmeralda Clooney, inside counsel for the Screen Actor’s Guild, “but these aren’t people we’re talking about. They’re celebrities. As such, they must be held to a different standard of law.”
Defense lawyers for Michael Jackson were ecstatic about the law’s passage. “In a way, it’s too bad Michael didn’t just kill those kids,” remarked Michael’s lead counsel. “If he had, this trial would be over already.” When asked how he thought Michael will fare before a jury of his peers, Jackson’s attorney laughed. “Of course Michael has no peers – at least not on this planet. Regardless, I expect my client to get off – excuse me – be acquitted. I mean – compared to murder, whatever Michael allegedly did probably isn’t even against the law now.”
Some questions remain as to what qualifies one as a “well-known” celebrity under the revised statutes. Experts believe the courts will likely rule that a defendant would need to have acquired their celebrity status prior to committing a murder, not as a result of publicity relating to the commission of said act.
According to Donald Kennedy, chairman of the California Bar Association, “Under the new law, even though Robert Blake has been out of the limelight for decades, given his well established television presence in the 1970’s, he would have been perfectly within his right to shoot Ms. Bakely right there in the restaurant in front of dozens of eye witnesses without the least fear of prosecution.”
Scott Peterson, on the other hand, was a relative unknown prior to murdering his wife, Laci, and as a result stood no chance of acquittal. “Ironically, Scott would have been better off hiring Robert Blake to kill his wife,” quipped Kennedy. Most legal experts agree, however, that even if Peterson had not killed his wife, the state would have found some other excuse to put him to death, if for no other reason than to “rid the planet of a real schmuck.”
Although no one in California is quite sure what the long term repercussions of the revised law will be, Hollywood is bracing for a rash of new killings expected to follow in the wake of the recent legislation.
Film producer Martin Scorsese is already scrambling to revise casting on a new film he begins shooting next month which was scheduled to star Barbara Streisand. “We don’t expect her to survive the week,” lamented Scorsese. “It’s better to replace her now with someone less likely to get whacked, than take the chance Brolin snuffs her two weeks into filming.”
Renown Las Vegas odds maker Vinnie “The Pocket” Felice says Las Vegas is already accepting wagers on which celebrities will be the first to die.
Despite widely publicized rumors of her death during the late 1980’s, Felice says Joan Rivers is alive, well, “raking in the bucks” at casinos up and down the strip. Smart money, however, seems to be flowing toward one of Hollywood’s more contemporary honeys. “Even though she’s not technically anyone’s spouse, most folks are throwing down on Paris Hilton,” said Felice. “It seems most everyone hates her guts.”
Other names at the top of the odds maker’s list include Sean Penn, Madonna, Brittany Spears, Jessica Simpson, and Ben Affleck. “If this happened a few months ago, Affleck would have been a goner right away,” insists Felice. “Since he’s been hanging around with Jennifer Garner, though, it’s hard to say. I mean, I’ve watched that chick tear out a guy’s liver, cook it, and feed it to him for dinner before he knew it was missing. No way J-Lo messes up Ben with her around.”
The fates of other Hollywood couples aren’t as easy to predict. Political analysts attribute this uncertainty to whether the courts will interpret the new law as including common law marriages and/or ex-spouses. Under the extended scenario, Felice likes a Madonna-Sean Penn ticket. “I’d give Madonna the edge physically, but Penn has a real mean streak. It’d be a great fight.” Asked about another of his favorite match ups, Felice gives Bruce Willis the nod over Demi Moore, owing mostly to Willis’ roles in the Die Hard films. “He’s smart, creative, and ruthless,” insists Felice. “And to top it off, he has motive. I mean Ashton Kutcher? What the hell is that all about?”
Owing to unpredictable violent outbursts associated with frequent steroid use, another group in the high risk category are the wives of Major League Baseball players. Felice agreed. “Yeah. We’re expecting a lot of them to get whacked too.” Commissioner Bud Selig declined comment.
Sales of rat poison and handguns have tripled in the Los Angeles area since the new law passed. Even so, only time will tell how this all plays out, and whether other states will follow suit. Until then, it seems the law change is putting America’s famous on their best behavior. “I even saw Bill and Hillary holding hands yesterday,” claimed a Washington political insider. “Yep – everyone’s all smiles and politeness these days, cause they know when they get home, it could be whackin’ time,” agreed Felice.
Finally, the California State Parole Board tells us the Charles Manson case is being reviewed under the new statute. Experts agree Manson’s fate will likely hang on the court’s interpretation of the term “family.”
© 2005 Mark J. Layne/Layne-Duck Productions, Ltd.
“This is a terrific example of our justice system at work,” commented public defender Robbie “Whipsaw” Cochran, outspoken cousin of O.J. Simpson’s defense counsel. “What the state is saying is what we’ve been saying all along: just because the police find a knife covered in a victim’s blood with a dude’s finger prints on the weapon and a video tape of that same dude stabbing the victim left next to his signed confession, it doesn’t necessarily mean the dude’s guilty.”
According to sources in state government, recent decisions in the lower courts prompted Tuesday’s controversial action. Douglas Shriver, spokesperson for the California Supreme Court, was relieved. “We are now able to eliminate dozens of “frivolous” celebrity murder trials from our already overburdened court system. The legislature must have finally realized there was no sense perpetuating the charade that celebrities are subject to same laws as the rest of the population, especially when there are so many more serious issues currently before the court such as gay marriage.”
A source inside the Governor’s office who wished to remain anonymous claimed, however, that the decision was based more on economic considerations owing to the state’s recent financial crisis. “This is California. Our entire economy is linked to the entertainment industry. Speaking from an economic standpoint, if our primary export product is entertainment, and celebrities are the raw material from which that product is forged, then, in spite of what reprehensible citizens they may be, locking them all up would be not only foolish, but economically disastrous given the state’s current budget situation.”
Assistant Lieutenant Governor, Günter Schwarzenegger, denied this legislation had anything to do Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s former ties to Hollywood. “That’s nonsense,” he claimed. “Arnold was never a very good actor anyway.”
Religious groups are understandably outraged. “This is a travesty,” complained Rev. Calvin Glover of the San Dimas Church of Future Day Martyrs. An advocate for the prevention of domestic violence, Reverend Glover has devoted his ministry to the prevention of such crimes subsequent to his 1991 conviction for spousal abuse. “This ruling will only serve to place innocent lives in jeopardy, including my own wife’s.”
I understand his concerns,” stated Esmeralda Clooney, inside counsel for the Screen Actor’s Guild, “but these aren’t people we’re talking about. They’re celebrities. As such, they must be held to a different standard of law.”
Defense lawyers for Michael Jackson were ecstatic about the law’s passage. “In a way, it’s too bad Michael didn’t just kill those kids,” remarked Michael’s lead counsel. “If he had, this trial would be over already.” When asked how he thought Michael will fare before a jury of his peers, Jackson’s attorney laughed. “Of course Michael has no peers – at least not on this planet. Regardless, I expect my client to get off – excuse me – be acquitted. I mean – compared to murder, whatever Michael allegedly did probably isn’t even against the law now.”
Some questions remain as to what qualifies one as a “well-known” celebrity under the revised statutes. Experts believe the courts will likely rule that a defendant would need to have acquired their celebrity status prior to committing a murder, not as a result of publicity relating to the commission of said act.
According to Donald Kennedy, chairman of the California Bar Association, “Under the new law, even though Robert Blake has been out of the limelight for decades, given his well established television presence in the 1970’s, he would have been perfectly within his right to shoot Ms. Bakely right there in the restaurant in front of dozens of eye witnesses without the least fear of prosecution.”
Scott Peterson, on the other hand, was a relative unknown prior to murdering his wife, Laci, and as a result stood no chance of acquittal. “Ironically, Scott would have been better off hiring Robert Blake to kill his wife,” quipped Kennedy. Most legal experts agree, however, that even if Peterson had not killed his wife, the state would have found some other excuse to put him to death, if for no other reason than to “rid the planet of a real schmuck.”
Although no one in California is quite sure what the long term repercussions of the revised law will be, Hollywood is bracing for a rash of new killings expected to follow in the wake of the recent legislation.
Film producer Martin Scorsese is already scrambling to revise casting on a new film he begins shooting next month which was scheduled to star Barbara Streisand. “We don’t expect her to survive the week,” lamented Scorsese. “It’s better to replace her now with someone less likely to get whacked, than take the chance Brolin snuffs her two weeks into filming.”
Renown Las Vegas odds maker Vinnie “The Pocket” Felice says Las Vegas is already accepting wagers on which celebrities will be the first to die.
Despite widely publicized rumors of her death during the late 1980’s, Felice says Joan Rivers is alive, well, “raking in the bucks” at casinos up and down the strip. Smart money, however, seems to be flowing toward one of Hollywood’s more contemporary honeys. “Even though she’s not technically anyone’s spouse, most folks are throwing down on Paris Hilton,” said Felice. “It seems most everyone hates her guts.”
Other names at the top of the odds maker’s list include Sean Penn, Madonna, Brittany Spears, Jessica Simpson, and Ben Affleck. “If this happened a few months ago, Affleck would have been a goner right away,” insists Felice. “Since he’s been hanging around with Jennifer Garner, though, it’s hard to say. I mean, I’ve watched that chick tear out a guy’s liver, cook it, and feed it to him for dinner before he knew it was missing. No way J-Lo messes up Ben with her around.”
The fates of other Hollywood couples aren’t as easy to predict. Political analysts attribute this uncertainty to whether the courts will interpret the new law as including common law marriages and/or ex-spouses. Under the extended scenario, Felice likes a Madonna-Sean Penn ticket. “I’d give Madonna the edge physically, but Penn has a real mean streak. It’d be a great fight.” Asked about another of his favorite match ups, Felice gives Bruce Willis the nod over Demi Moore, owing mostly to Willis’ roles in the Die Hard films. “He’s smart, creative, and ruthless,” insists Felice. “And to top it off, he has motive. I mean Ashton Kutcher? What the hell is that all about?”
Owing to unpredictable violent outbursts associated with frequent steroid use, another group in the high risk category are the wives of Major League Baseball players. Felice agreed. “Yeah. We’re expecting a lot of them to get whacked too.” Commissioner Bud Selig declined comment.
Sales of rat poison and handguns have tripled in the Los Angeles area since the new law passed. Even so, only time will tell how this all plays out, and whether other states will follow suit. Until then, it seems the law change is putting America’s famous on their best behavior. “I even saw Bill and Hillary holding hands yesterday,” claimed a Washington political insider. “Yep – everyone’s all smiles and politeness these days, cause they know when they get home, it could be whackin’ time,” agreed Felice.
Finally, the California State Parole Board tells us the Charles Manson case is being reviewed under the new statute. Experts agree Manson’s fate will likely hang on the court’s interpretation of the term “family.”
© 2005 Mark J. Layne/Layne-Duck Productions, Ltd.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Hurray for Hollywood!
It is once again that time of year when we set aside our petty concerns, take pause of our daily routines, and direct our attention to one of the more profound, far reaching questions facing mankind today: who designed Hillary Swank’s dress?
Of course I’m referring to the Oscars – Hollywood’s annual love affair with itself… the one night of the year when the rich, famous, and terminally dysfunctional can stand up and proclaim, “It’s all about me,” to the rousing affirmations of their colleagues and cohorts.
Like many great discoveries including penicillin, the polio vaccine, and “ultra suede,” the storied, socially significant history of the Oscars can be traced to a serendipitous event which occurred on the evening of February 27, 1929, at the Brown Derby restaurant in Hollywood.
On the night in question, notorious skinflint, Jack Benny, was dining on the house specialty, Veal Oscar. In an effort to avoid paying his bill, Benny planted a rubber palmetto bug under his last bite of meat, making such a commotion over its discovery that the restaurant’s maitre d’ was heard to comment, “He should win an award for that performance.” The maitre d’ then turned to his head waiter and reluctantly commanded, “Bring Mr. Benny another Oscar,” at which point Benny’s fellow diners rose to their feet and applauded, cell phones no doubt wedged between their shoulders and cheeks.
The rest, as they say, is history. And at a point in history where the world is short on heroes, who better to invest our hopes for the future than in those persons able to pretend, with utter credibility, that they possess the bravery, wisdom, fortitude, and charisma to overcome the many contrived obstacles precisely arranged in their paths, and then triumph over their carefully drawn tragic flaws in the end?
Consider former President Ronald Reagan: anomaly or prototype? Prior to our last national election, when asked who they thought would make a good President, 111 of the 100 people polled said they would vote for West Wing star Martin Sheen. Is it then so far fetched to consider hiring a troupe of semi-skilled actors to run our government? As long as we had some top notch writers scripting everything they say and do, would we really be any worse off than we are now?
I for one am relieved to see Hollywood finally dispense with the pretense that The Academy Awards has anything to do with films and filmmaking, focusing its attention instead on the people who bring the celluloid art form to life. Let’s be honest – without the actors and actresses, what would film be but a meaningful, carefully orchestrated series of interconnected pictures that tell a story? Even more importantly, without what some might consider the “insane” compensation film stars receive for laboring minutes on end between massages, sessions with personal trainers, and catered meals, one can only imagine the sad state of affairs this nation’s pharmaceutical, cosmetic surgery, and mental health industries might otherwise find themselves in.
There is a reason we as a nation harbor such fascination for movie stars. The truth is we need our celebrities… the “beautiful people” who, except in the case of Clint Howard, have been put on this earth to help the rest of us see just how unattractive and misshapen we really are, thereby giving us an ideal to strive toward, while simultaneously reinforcing life’s pecking order.
So party on, Hollywood! Truly there is no one more deserving of yourselves than you. And wouldn’t Hillary Swank be a terrific name for a country line dance?
© 2005 Mark J. Layne/Non Compos Mentis Productions, Ltd.
Of course I’m referring to the Oscars – Hollywood’s annual love affair with itself… the one night of the year when the rich, famous, and terminally dysfunctional can stand up and proclaim, “It’s all about me,” to the rousing affirmations of their colleagues and cohorts.
Like many great discoveries including penicillin, the polio vaccine, and “ultra suede,” the storied, socially significant history of the Oscars can be traced to a serendipitous event which occurred on the evening of February 27, 1929, at the Brown Derby restaurant in Hollywood.
On the night in question, notorious skinflint, Jack Benny, was dining on the house specialty, Veal Oscar. In an effort to avoid paying his bill, Benny planted a rubber palmetto bug under his last bite of meat, making such a commotion over its discovery that the restaurant’s maitre d’ was heard to comment, “He should win an award for that performance.” The maitre d’ then turned to his head waiter and reluctantly commanded, “Bring Mr. Benny another Oscar,” at which point Benny’s fellow diners rose to their feet and applauded, cell phones no doubt wedged between their shoulders and cheeks.
The rest, as they say, is history. And at a point in history where the world is short on heroes, who better to invest our hopes for the future than in those persons able to pretend, with utter credibility, that they possess the bravery, wisdom, fortitude, and charisma to overcome the many contrived obstacles precisely arranged in their paths, and then triumph over their carefully drawn tragic flaws in the end?
Consider former President Ronald Reagan: anomaly or prototype? Prior to our last national election, when asked who they thought would make a good President, 111 of the 100 people polled said they would vote for West Wing star Martin Sheen. Is it then so far fetched to consider hiring a troupe of semi-skilled actors to run our government? As long as we had some top notch writers scripting everything they say and do, would we really be any worse off than we are now?
I for one am relieved to see Hollywood finally dispense with the pretense that The Academy Awards has anything to do with films and filmmaking, focusing its attention instead on the people who bring the celluloid art form to life. Let’s be honest – without the actors and actresses, what would film be but a meaningful, carefully orchestrated series of interconnected pictures that tell a story? Even more importantly, without what some might consider the “insane” compensation film stars receive for laboring minutes on end between massages, sessions with personal trainers, and catered meals, one can only imagine the sad state of affairs this nation’s pharmaceutical, cosmetic surgery, and mental health industries might otherwise find themselves in.
There is a reason we as a nation harbor such fascination for movie stars. The truth is we need our celebrities… the “beautiful people” who, except in the case of Clint Howard, have been put on this earth to help the rest of us see just how unattractive and misshapen we really are, thereby giving us an ideal to strive toward, while simultaneously reinforcing life’s pecking order.
So party on, Hollywood! Truly there is no one more deserving of yourselves than you. And wouldn’t Hillary Swank be a terrific name for a country line dance?
© 2005 Mark J. Layne/Non Compos Mentis Productions, Ltd.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Americans for Illiteracy
A special message from the President of the United States...
(cc closed captioned for the hearing impaired)
My Fellow American:
Your country needs you.
It’s an accepted fact that the United States is the greatest nation on the Earth, perhaps in the universe. Anyone who believes differently is either a traitor or a communist.
But what makes ours the strongest political institution since the fall of the Roman Empire?
Scholars would argue it’s our people – the hard working, dedicated, patriotic Americans who have strove throughout history to forge what has become the most powerful, wealthy sovereign state prior to Donald Trump.
I disagree. I believe what truly makes this nation great is our government and those who serve her. Allow me to explain…
All governments emanate from certain fundamental principles which date back to John Locke’s concept of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, pursuit of property. In the United States, our primary founding principle is one of democracy. Democracy in America is based on seven essential ideals: (1) People must accept majority rule. (2) The free exchange of opinions and ideas must not be restricted. (3) The political rights of minorities (except Muslims) must be protected. (4) Citizens must agree to a system of rule by law. (5) Government exists to serve the people, because it derives its power from the people. (6) All pots must contain chickens. (7) No witchcraft on Sundays.
Drawing upon these principles, our founding fathers penned The US Constitution. Originally drafted in 1787 (coincidentally during the Constitutional Convention), and secretly rewritten several times in recent years to accommodate necessary measures involving national security, the Constitution has been the supreme law of the land since 1788, and is the world’s oldest charter of national government in continuous use.
The ideals expressed in the Constitution form the basis of a government which seeks to create a union of diverse interests and peoples (as long as they are registered voters). Inherent in this system is the belief that the citizens collectively represent a nation’s authority. As noted by Thomas Jefferson in 1820, “I know no safe repository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves.”
Though many of the founding fathers were former criminals and/or opium-addled miscreants with no more than grade school educations, their vision of a government ruled by the will of the people, and imminently accountable to its citizens, persists today. Daniel Webster, husband of famed laureate Merriam, in his famous speech of June,1825, at Bunker Hill echoed this sentiment: “The people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.”
These were certainly more idealistic, less sensible times, for as our nation grew and the population continued to spread farther from the center of government, the concept of each voter having his voice heard in Washington became impracticable. This led the founding fathers to seek a way to provide individual citizens the ability to effect social and political change, but without traipsing all the way to Washington with their goats, chickens, musk oxen, and lemurs to cast their votes.
In response to this newfound challenge, a revolutionary form of “representative democracy” was conceived whereby a community would select an unemployed person from amongst their ranks to act as their spokesperson in Washington, thereby expressing the concerns of the community through a single voice.
Under this design, the people delegate their powers to elected officials who, in turn, vow to serve the needs of their constituents, thus becoming agents of the people. With their vote, the people can then remove leaders who ignore their intentions or betray their trust, and replace them with someone else even less accountable.
Though by no means perfect, this system has stood the test of time for over 200 years.
Today, thanks to the miracle of modern technology, your Congressman, via an answering machine atop a dusty desk inside an otherwise deserted storefront office of a defunct shopping center in his district, is now able to hear the concerns of his constituents – or at least view the transcript of those concerns as compiled by the attractive female volunteer who pretends to listen to the tape once every other month – and formulate legislation based on those concerns. He then carries said legislation to the nation’s capital where he tenders his constituent’s concerns by proxy to an unplugged microphone in an imaginary Congressional hearing room prior to going out to an expensive dinner with members of the special interest group who contributed most generously to his campaign.
Which brings me to my point: Due to the proliferation and accessibility of informational outlets now available to ordinary citizens, our nation – more importantly our political institutions – are in dire jeopardy of exposure to the glaring light of the truth. As such, not since the time of great leaders like Nero and Caligula has there been so urgent a need to allow our elected representatives more freedom in executing their offices.
The duties your elected officials perform and the agendas they have sworn to carry out are crucial not only to the health of our government, but to the financial well being of every voting age American in the 38% and above tax bracket. For the system to work, however, it is essential for these officials to maintain “political leverage,” or their ability to act without the meddlesome interference of the people they represent
This is why I’m asking you to join me today in supporting Americans for Illiteracy.
It is a scientific fact that an effective politician is a politician free of the chains of fiscal and social accountability. I believe I speak for all elected officials when I say the single greatest impediment to the success of any ground-breaking political agenda is an informed, well-educated public.
It is the mission of Americans for Illiteracy to encourage voting Americans to place their blind, unwavering trust in their elected representatives by ignoring all media coverage of government goings on at both local and national levels. Only in this way can we hope to sustain the ability of our elected officials to implement legislation which, while keeping the reelection machinery humming, may occasionally intersect with the needs and concerns of the voting public.
Toward this end, Americans for Illiteracy urges you to put down your newspapers, set aside your books, turn off your radios and computers, and devote whatever time you might otherwise spend reading or surfing the net to watching daytime television and/or playing video games.
Truly, too much information in the hands of the wrong people (i.e. “voters”) poses the gravest of dangers to both the American political system and the policy making power of myriad special interest groups. Trust that your elected representatives will provide you with all you need to know when they feel you’re ready to know it. In the meantime, keep working hard and paying your taxes so you’ll have money to donate to the campaigns of those dedicated persons giving their all to remain in office in order to spend your tax dollars on their pet pork-barrel projects.
In closing, like others who have gone before me, I am guided by visions – not just of scantily clad dancing girls – but of a day when our nation will return to a global preeminence not witnessed since the reign of King George III. But I cannot do it without your help. Please – join forces with me and Americans for Illiteracy to make my vision reality.
Thank you in advance for your support,
The President of the United States
© 2004 Mark J. Layne/Layne-Duck Productions, Ltd.
(cc closed captioned for the hearing impaired)
My Fellow American:
Your country needs you.
It’s an accepted fact that the United States is the greatest nation on the Earth, perhaps in the universe. Anyone who believes differently is either a traitor or a communist.
But what makes ours the strongest political institution since the fall of the Roman Empire?
Scholars would argue it’s our people – the hard working, dedicated, patriotic Americans who have strove throughout history to forge what has become the most powerful, wealthy sovereign state prior to Donald Trump.
I disagree. I believe what truly makes this nation great is our government and those who serve her. Allow me to explain…
All governments emanate from certain fundamental principles which date back to John Locke’s concept of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, pursuit of property. In the United States, our primary founding principle is one of democracy. Democracy in America is based on seven essential ideals: (1) People must accept majority rule. (2) The free exchange of opinions and ideas must not be restricted. (3) The political rights of minorities (except Muslims) must be protected. (4) Citizens must agree to a system of rule by law. (5) Government exists to serve the people, because it derives its power from the people. (6) All pots must contain chickens. (7) No witchcraft on Sundays.
Drawing upon these principles, our founding fathers penned The US Constitution. Originally drafted in 1787 (coincidentally during the Constitutional Convention), and secretly rewritten several times in recent years to accommodate necessary measures involving national security, the Constitution has been the supreme law of the land since 1788, and is the world’s oldest charter of national government in continuous use.
The ideals expressed in the Constitution form the basis of a government which seeks to create a union of diverse interests and peoples (as long as they are registered voters). Inherent in this system is the belief that the citizens collectively represent a nation’s authority. As noted by Thomas Jefferson in 1820, “I know no safe repository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves.”
Though many of the founding fathers were former criminals and/or opium-addled miscreants with no more than grade school educations, their vision of a government ruled by the will of the people, and imminently accountable to its citizens, persists today. Daniel Webster, husband of famed laureate Merriam, in his famous speech of June,1825, at Bunker Hill echoed this sentiment: “The people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.”
These were certainly more idealistic, less sensible times, for as our nation grew and the population continued to spread farther from the center of government, the concept of each voter having his voice heard in Washington became impracticable. This led the founding fathers to seek a way to provide individual citizens the ability to effect social and political change, but without traipsing all the way to Washington with their goats, chickens, musk oxen, and lemurs to cast their votes.
In response to this newfound challenge, a revolutionary form of “representative democracy” was conceived whereby a community would select an unemployed person from amongst their ranks to act as their spokesperson in Washington, thereby expressing the concerns of the community through a single voice.
Under this design, the people delegate their powers to elected officials who, in turn, vow to serve the needs of their constituents, thus becoming agents of the people. With their vote, the people can then remove leaders who ignore their intentions or betray their trust, and replace them with someone else even less accountable.
Though by no means perfect, this system has stood the test of time for over 200 years.
Today, thanks to the miracle of modern technology, your Congressman, via an answering machine atop a dusty desk inside an otherwise deserted storefront office of a defunct shopping center in his district, is now able to hear the concerns of his constituents – or at least view the transcript of those concerns as compiled by the attractive female volunteer who pretends to listen to the tape once every other month – and formulate legislation based on those concerns. He then carries said legislation to the nation’s capital where he tenders his constituent’s concerns by proxy to an unplugged microphone in an imaginary Congressional hearing room prior to going out to an expensive dinner with members of the special interest group who contributed most generously to his campaign.
Which brings me to my point: Due to the proliferation and accessibility of informational outlets now available to ordinary citizens, our nation – more importantly our political institutions – are in dire jeopardy of exposure to the glaring light of the truth. As such, not since the time of great leaders like Nero and Caligula has there been so urgent a need to allow our elected representatives more freedom in executing their offices.
The duties your elected officials perform and the agendas they have sworn to carry out are crucial not only to the health of our government, but to the financial well being of every voting age American in the 38% and above tax bracket. For the system to work, however, it is essential for these officials to maintain “political leverage,” or their ability to act without the meddlesome interference of the people they represent
This is why I’m asking you to join me today in supporting Americans for Illiteracy.
It is a scientific fact that an effective politician is a politician free of the chains of fiscal and social accountability. I believe I speak for all elected officials when I say the single greatest impediment to the success of any ground-breaking political agenda is an informed, well-educated public.
It is the mission of Americans for Illiteracy to encourage voting Americans to place their blind, unwavering trust in their elected representatives by ignoring all media coverage of government goings on at both local and national levels. Only in this way can we hope to sustain the ability of our elected officials to implement legislation which, while keeping the reelection machinery humming, may occasionally intersect with the needs and concerns of the voting public.
Toward this end, Americans for Illiteracy urges you to put down your newspapers, set aside your books, turn off your radios and computers, and devote whatever time you might otherwise spend reading or surfing the net to watching daytime television and/or playing video games.
Truly, too much information in the hands of the wrong people (i.e. “voters”) poses the gravest of dangers to both the American political system and the policy making power of myriad special interest groups. Trust that your elected representatives will provide you with all you need to know when they feel you’re ready to know it. In the meantime, keep working hard and paying your taxes so you’ll have money to donate to the campaigns of those dedicated persons giving their all to remain in office in order to spend your tax dollars on their pet pork-barrel projects.
In closing, like others who have gone before me, I am guided by visions – not just of scantily clad dancing girls – but of a day when our nation will return to a global preeminence not witnessed since the reign of King George III. But I cannot do it without your help. Please – join forces with me and Americans for Illiteracy to make my vision reality.
Thank you in advance for your support,
The President of the United States
© 2004 Mark J. Layne/Layne-Duck Productions, Ltd.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Ten Characteristics of Higly Successful People
- Competitive
Everyone has heard the axiom, “There’s plenty for everyone.” Likewise, most are familiar with the concept of the “win-win” scenario. Successful persons recognize such platitudes as hogwash – false assumptions of the weak-minded and spineless. The successful learned long ago that only by keeping down the “have nots” can they be assured of always having more than they possibly need or could ever hope to use for themselves. - Ostentatious
Back in the 80’s, before the advent of “personal shoppers” and the “luxury tax,” success was its own reward. In modern times, however, the only good reason for becoming successful is to rub it in the faces of those who aren’t. This is why successful people live by the credos, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it,” and “The bigger, the better.” This is also why the successful spend a substantial portion of their “disposable” income on unnecessary, extravagant items they do not need nor have any intention of ever using such as gems they keep permanently locked in bank vaults, helicopters to decorate the backs of a yachts they’re thinking about purchasing, and islands they've never visited. Go ahead – order an extra slab of prime rib and feed it to the dog. You can afford it! - Arrogant
Successful people don’t think they’re better than everyone else, they are better than everyone else. As a result, the successful are wont to offer their opinions to any and all who will listen, and even to those who won’t. Likewise, it is the civil duty of the truly successful to remind the less fortunate just how bad they have it, thereby serving as a source of inspiration to the unwashed masses while simultaneously reinforcing life’s pecking order. - Alcoholic
It has often been said that the true measure of a man’s success is how well his bar is stocked. Being successful produces a great deal of stress, and the way successful people deal with stress is by drinking—plain and simple. - Heart-Unhealthy
Everyone knows that when you’re busy being successful, there isn’t time to eat properly. This is why truly successful people subsist mainly on a diet of high fat, high cholesterol foods with minimal nutritional value like those available at our country’s fine selection of fast food franchises, shopping mall kiosks, and convenience store vending machines. - Opinionated
When a successful person is presented an opportunity to share his or her knowledge on a subject, he or she sees it not so much as an occasion to engage in colorful discourse with his fellow man, but more of a chance to enlighten an uninformed, largely ignorant rabble of cretins and boors. In fact, a mark of true success is the ability to adopt an indefensible stance on a subject you know nothing about, and then defend that position to the death, even when the facts prove you wholly incorrect. - Square-Eyed
We live in a society where information is king. Since television is the only readily available and truly reliable source of information on almost every subject, most successful people spend upwards of eight hours per day glued to their TV’s. - Indifferent
Because they want for nothing, successful people tend to find life extremely boring. As a result, they are not ashamed to yawn brazenly during the middle of a conversation they find tedious, or to abruptly leave a dinner party after the soup, but before the salad, with no explanation. It is this same refined quality that allows the successful to walk blissfully past an injured animal or drowning child without notice or care. - Vain
Successful people realize that in this world, appearance is everything. Studies have shown that attractive, well groomed persons of professional manner and dress are almost guaranteed success in life. Conversely, fat, ugly people with public educations have little chance of becoming anything more than counter workers at fast food restaurants or ditch diggers, and should probably just kill themselves rather than living in certain misery and desperation while simultaneously giving the beautiful people of this world indigestion from having to look at them. - Ruthless
Successful people don’t get to where they are by considering the feelings of others. They learn early on in life that being successful means looking out for one’s own best interests, even if at the expense of another’s success, dignity, or personal well being. When the chips are down and the ship is sinking at the bow, the successful gentleman casts his pride aside, hikes up his skirt, and climbs aboard the lifeboat whether his heels match his handbag or not.
© 2004 Mark J. Layne/Layne-Duck Productions, Ltd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)